From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |
Date: | 2017-10-05 22:34:41 |
Message-ID: | 20171005223441.cwjtedpuwjmhivhn@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-10-05 17:31:07 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > > vfork() is widely demonized, but it's actually quite superior
> > > (performance-wise) to fork() when all you want to do is exec-or-exit
> > > since no page copying (COW or otherwise) needs be done when using
> > > vfork().
> >
> > Not on linux, at least not as of a year or two back.
>
> glibc has it. Other Linux C libraries might also; I've not checked them
> all.
It has it, but it's not more efficient.
> > I do think it'd be good to move more towards threads, but not at all for
> > the reasons mentioned here.
>
> You don't think eliminating a large difference between handling of WIN32
> vs. POSIX is a good reason?
I seems like you'd not really get a much reduced set of differences,
just a *different* set of differences. After investing time.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nico Williams | 2017-10-05 22:39:51 | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |
Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2017-10-05 22:31:07 | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |